video:
Mech on the refutation of pack-theory,
hierarchical order, Alphas, etc:

YouTube - "Alpha" Wolf?



Mech,
article on refutation of Alpha + pack-theory

http://www.redwolves.com/downloads/alphawolf.pdf

also see:
Non-linear dogs, article (Google)

bear in mind that wolves are not dogs; captive wolves in artificial groups are not a pack.

a wild PACK is an assembly of relatives, with a shared social history; primarily the parents or breeding-pair, and their current juvenile pups, with those older progeny who have not yet gone off to pair-up themselves, + possibly a few parent-sibs - an aunt, uncle, etc.

cheers,
--- terry

__________________
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
*wolves R wolves, dogs R dogs, + primates R us.*
tmp, sept-2007

This is a very interesting video and article - thank you for posting it.

However, whilst it explains very clearly how wolf packs operate, it does not refute "pack theory" in general, and it is certainly not saying that pack-theory is defunct as you suggest in your title. In fact, the article actually states that in situations

"when one puts a random group of species together artifically, these animals will naturally compete with each other and eventually form a type of dominance hierarchy. In such cases, it is appropriate to refer to the top-ranking individualas as "alphas", implying that they competed and fought to gain their position. And so too it was with wolves when placed together artificially."

I have seen many posts on many different pet forums about "pack theory" being an outdated theory that has been superceded, and the poster usually follows on to state that if anyone who keeps more than one dog there won't be an "alpha" dog and a pack hierarchy. However, what this video and article is actually saying is that that is just not true. It is saying that whilst wolf packs are composed of a family hierarchy and do not have to fight for their position, any random group of dogs (including wolves!) brought together will behave in the "pack theory" way. Hence anyone who keeps more than one dog will indeed find the pack theory applies.

__________________
Bergies and borders - what more could anyone want? Siamese and maine coons, of course!

From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on, nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
(But you can always edit your post, of course )

Woah!!! What breaking news. Is that what they mean about wolf pack theorry? I thought that some new amazing find had been discovered.

Anyone who has accidently switched on a wildlife documentary or done so out of choice will know that wolf packs are made up of the parents at the top doing what parents do best and maybe the odd outsider that has been accepted after many months or years of being in the periphery and having to prove themsleves but these are very rare.
The same is true in African Hunting dogs but they never get mentioned to my surprise.

In the pack belong to my dad is the leader, the alpha male and a leader I respect and admire. One day I will take over that role (in many ways I already have) but I have done what many adolecent wolves do and I have left the confines of the pack to set out and look to start a pack of my own. I am allowed back into the pack though unlike adolecent wolves once they have left.

Anyone who thinks that wolves scrap and fight and challenge for the leadership role are pretty misinformed. If the parent wolves are injyred or killed during a hunt then the lower wolves will only take over if the injured parents are unable to provide and the survival of the pack is in jeopardy.

When you take on a dog you are it's surrogate parent but you have to earn its respect just like you would if you adopted a child. You can't force yourself to be a leader as then you rule out of fear and when you rule by fear there will be parties within the group that will share a common interest to see your leadership status taken away from you. If you are elected as leader out of respect then nobody questions why you are there but who questions their parent's actions when they are first learning about the world? If they say an egg is a aeroplane that that is how it is inprinted on your mind. It might be wrong to everyone else but it is correct to your pack. Setting a bad example does not have to mean that you act like an idiot, it could mean that you don't lay down any ground rules that are to be respected.

You set the rules and you enforce the rules. You say when and where affection is given. You say when and where is ok to play. You say and where you are going out. You say how fast you are travelling and what direction. You say who can and can't be greeted. You say when and where they get fed.

This is for the dog's safety as you are the decision maker but you also allow the time for your dog to express freedom of thought and time to do all of the things it wants to do. It's not a dictatorship it's a family that works on respect.

I agree with all you say about wolves and the way famiies work Hutch. I must admit I get pretty cross with people who read a bit of an article or watch a documentary and then come on forums and propound the theory that - shock horror - suddenly it is "new" that wolves don't behave in this way and so domestic animals don't either, and all the people who have observed this happening are now all wrong.

I also agree with most of what you what you say about how families behave, and how the family dog fits into the scenario. However, I would add that the leader of the pack (ie the human) finds it a lot easier to rule if he allows the pack to form its own natural hierarchy under him rather than trying to force a hierarchy onto it. For example, if there are three dogs in the household and Rex sees himself as higher in the pack of three than Fido or Prince, then the leader (ie the human) will find it easier to accept that hierarchy under him than to try to force a different hierarchy - for example trying to make Fido higher in the structure than Rex.

I'm not saying it cannot be done - of course it can - but it is easier not to have to.

__________________
Bergies and borders - what more could anyone want? Siamese and maine coons, of course!

From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on, nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
(But you can always edit your post, of course )

Aboslutely.

Although I have had Dillon longer than Kes and I should feel a human affinity towards Dillon to get the best etc or get more of my attention I can't because it would just cause further issues. I treat them just the same and divide my time between them but I know Kes is the top dog as he is the first through gaps every single time, if they are walking alonside me then Kes will be slightly in front of Dillon. If I was to feed Dillon first, show him more affection than Kes, allow him to sleep ont he sofa instead of both of them on the floor then there is confusion. They get fed at the same time (wolves will eat - alpha pair alone and undisturbed - next in line, next in line but only the alpha pair are allowed to get up an walk away fro their food before the others join in. The rest of the pack will get top the kill in turn but they don;t wait for eachother to finish), they both sleep on their beds, they aren't allowed on the sofas (I get down on the floor with them for hugs and strokes etc) but who gets the best spot is entirely up to them.

hey, all - :--)

i am only going to respond once, and that generally - i think Mech, who PUBLISHED the original erroneous research, sums it up well.

when he refers to an artificial collection of CAPTIVE * WOLVES - who are total strangers, in a confined space, unable to leave - scrapping over food, pushing each other around, quarreling frequently, etc --- he is Not Talking About Dogs.
dogs are first and foremost, Not wolves.

if i bring a strange dog into my home with an already-resident dog, there may be a period of arguments, but they are generally minor, and If i do it RIGHT, and intro the dogs off home turf, there may be no disagreements whatever.
there is no status pole to climb.

also, DOG behavior is highly influenced by * context * - when where who how...

a trainer-buddy has Five dogs in his home;
in the yard, the Akita is in charge of how the dogs respond to noises off, strangers, etc. he also lies across the top of the deck steps, blocking the access to the deck + door... any dog who would want to go back inside, has to get past him first.

in the house, the 12# F JRT is the one all the others tend to look toward - and her post is the back of the sofa, above all the other dogs. when the doorbell rings, she barks first, leaps down and gallops for the door - with the bigger dogs, Akita, 2 Dobes, and a Rott -- rapidly passing her by with their length of leg.

whoever is CLOSEST to the door, generally goes out it.
whoever is CLOSEST to the bone, treat, toy that is not *in possession*...
generally gets it.

also, dogs NOMINATE their reliable-member for the context they feel is apropos - neither the Akita nor the JRT-bitch had a single argument, let alone a physical fight, with anybody in the group. they were VOTED into office, LOL - and on any given day, if they do not Feel Like presiding, they do not bother.
the Akita will lie under a tree in shade, the JRT will lie down behind the sofa, not on the high-back, and they let somebody else decide what to do.
Fluid and Dynamic are the words most often used to express dom-dog relations, re status, age, context, etc.

if anyone reading this has a household of dogs who ALL exclusively defer to ONE dog, under any and all circs... i want to come visit, and document this marvel, LOL. (kidding, but yes i dearly would love to...)

dogs have no fixed, linear hierarchy - in over 25 years in dogs, i have never seen one. not even in related dogs who lived as a group, birth to death.

and a pack is a family - not a bloodthirsty incessant battle for supremacy, parents + kids, maybe some parental relatives, perhaps an outside F or young un-related M. yes, there are fights - but they are not common, posturing covers most of the usual conflict areas without any injuries at all.


Special Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
if U have a FIXED hierarchy, a truly unvarying single dog who supposedly rules with an iron paw...
please contact Coppinger, of the New View of Dogs book, i am SURE he would be fascinated, U may get into the research annals of history as a case study. (nope, not kidding in the least! if it exists, somebody needs to document it... and the only way to get it documented, is to get a reputable researcher involved. )

i am retiring from the field of intellectual battle, LOL -
U guys can wrassle over this subject like puppies over a rag, or wolf cubs over a dried-up scrap of hide -- have fun!

edited to add -
i never attempt to interfere in genuine dog-status quarrels, NOR do i ever suggest that the client attempt to decide who gets what - up on the sofa vs on the floor, who gets the free bone lying about, etc. MICRO-management of dogs is dangerous - assuming that we see all of the subtle postures and signals thrown by dogs, is ego talking, IMO; we are not at their eye-level, and even with the best intentions, miss a lot.
what i do is STOP any and all serious aggro, and also harassment - they can sort how they feel, i do not care;
but NOBODY hurts anyone else, and NOBODY torments or teases another, period.
if they do not love one another, fine - but by DoG, they will be civil.


cheers,
--- terry

__________________
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
*wolves R wolves, dogs R dogs, + primates R us.*
tmp, sept-2007

Whether you respond or not is of course up to you, but I fail to see why you post a subject on a forum if you don't want to debate it.

I suggest respectfully that you read the article you quoted properly, because as I pointed out to you in my first post, your chosen author actually states:

"when one puts a random group of species together artifically, these animals will naturally compete with each other and eventually form a type of dominance hierarchy. In such cases, it is appropriate to refer to the top-ranking individuals as "alphas", implying that they competed and fought to gain their position. And so too it was with wolves when placed together artificially."

In other words, in family groups there is no fight for hierarchy, but in non-family groups - and as Mech himself states, this applies to all species so your remarks about dogs not being wolves is superfluous - there is. And if, as you state about your own dogs:


then obviously you have experienced this in the domestic environment too! So the expert says it happens, you yourself have experienced it happening - I hope you do continue to post because in view of all this I'm really interested to find out why you think it doesn't happen?

__________________
Bergies and borders - what more could anyone want? Siamese and maine coons, of course!

From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on, nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
(But you can always edit your post, of course )

actually, i have not experienced this in my dogs, LOL -
nor in my clients, as i said i have *never ever* seen any fixed hierarchy.

i have however seen my CLIENTS allow a young pup to torment the life out of a senior-dog out of sheer boredom, and the clients were so ignorant as to allow this by the hour...
that is not *aggression* or fighting, but it is miserable for the target-dog, is it not?

as i see humans in the same relation to dogs as parents to children, MINDING the kids and interrupting rough play, teasing, nasty interactions of all sorts, that is MY duty as recess monitor, LOL - not as so-called pack-leader.

i Lead! thru doors, between parked cars, or in any other narrow space, because i want to recon before the dog sticks their head in there... not out of fear that the dog will see me as a subordinate, LOL, but to prevent any accidents or avoid nasty little surprises -
like the escaped PARROT who punctured the ear on my friends Golden as her DOG entered the vet-clinic off-leash ahead of her, just as she had done with that dog since he was a puppy!, bad idea... and the poor dog ended up crashing thru the surgical suite, screaming bloody murder with a parrot clamped to his tender, bleeding ear, while the parrot also screamed madly...
he had stitches and a net-bandage after, to keep the ear from a haemotoma.
it was bedlam!, poor dog, and the aftermath was a dog who did not even want to get out of the car, for fear some shrieking maniac would get him.

i have also seen this type of conflict arise among very-pushy dogs who are Not family nor in the same household; a group of SAR dogs were all in one small area on a bus, going to an educational event, and these dogs are typically very confident, eager, a bit frustrated at close confinement, and ready for anything to interrupt the boredom.

yet, amazingly, these Bolshy dogs were lying very pointedly with their FACES away from all the nearby dogs... Why? to minimize their own battering with stimuli, and to also present the least possible potential for any conflict.
it was a specific problem, brilliantly solved by the dogs themselves.

exercising manners is a simple thing; i have very high expectations, i teach what i want, and i follow-thru; dogs who comply can go virtually anywhere, and do amazing things. dogs who are problematic need much more management and oversight, and of necessity, cannot go as many places, or at least, not as freely.
i expect CIVIL behavior of other dogs and their handlers, too - manners are the lubricant of the social interface, n'est pas?

but MANNERS are not hierarchy, nor are they wolf behavior - they are MY imposition of MY preferences on MY dogs, and my request of other humans and dogs in public. i want everybody safe first, and having fun, second!
typical camp-counselor, eh?

cheers,
--- terry

__________________
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
*wolves R wolves, dogs R dogs, + primates R us.*
tmp, sept-2007

Brilliant Terri- thanks for sharing

__________________

Thanks for replying and clarifying your position Terry.

Do you think that, in the end, it's all a matter of semantics? You mention your role as a "leader" and also as "class monitor" - but whether you call it that or "alpha male" the result is still the same; what you say goes and the dogs obey you. And I also understand that you are doing this as a safety measure and not because you are jostling with the dogs for the "top" position, but from the dogs' perspective the end result is the same. They won't be able to follow your reasoning as to why you are stopping them going first through doors etc - you know it is so that you can recon but from their perspective you go first and they follow - ie you are the one in charge, whether you call yourself leader, class monitor or alpha male. Something worth thinking about?

I have five dogs - three bergamaschi and two border collies - all of them are well trained and accept both my OH and myself as being leader (or whatever term you wish!) but between the five of them there is a definite leader and a definite second in command - which amuses me greatly because I've never experienced a dog wanting to be second in command before. We don't get fights or squabbles, but if Evie (the oldest border collie) wants a toy or access to food or to go through a door first the others defer to her. Gabby, the oldest bergamasco, will defer to Evie but not to the others, and the others except for Evie will all defer to her.

__________________
Bergies and borders - what more could anyone want? Siamese and maine coons, of course!

From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on, nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
(But you can always edit your post, of course )